61 replies to this topic

[Hugh]

Well to be exact the "Making the New York Connection" was where I got that feeling. It's not a big issue, it may be correct but there's a lot of guessing going on that probably wasn't needed. As I said before I know nothing about Waterman so any collectors' lore is irrelevant to my reading, for me to get to the point where it appears more speculative than factual indicates a small bit probably best left out.

[Norm]

It appears to me that the author of the Balance article saw a picture in an old catalog that he had not seen before, put it together with what he already knew about Sheaffer pens and imagined a story that would combine the two. I am not clinging to the past, I am waiting for more convincing evidence to be presented. 

[david i]

You mean the old Houston catalogue page talking about balanced writing?  That's very old news.  The article makes something of that old news?  I have not read yet. Waterman had some pens of that shape too. Here's a Houston, Waterman 48 and Waterman 58

 

 

regards

 

d

[david i]

Thinking on this thread -- it's focus does meander -- I do disagree a bit with David Nishimura. Personal differences seem to be at the heart of the PCA's... issues.  "Putting them aside" is akin to the fellow who murdered his parents pleading mercy from the court since he tragically finds himself an orphan.

 

I can expand on this later. Notions of dishonorable behavior by persons on the Board, the purported  need for the Prez to force the new Editor to issue a public apology, even if that apology was rather half-assed, that sort.

 

-d

[Pensee]

Well to be exact the "Making the New York Connection" was where I got that feeling. It's not a big issue, it may be correct but there's a lot of guessing going on that probably wasn't needed. As I said before I know nothing about Waterman so any collectors' lore is irrelevant to my reading, for me to get to the point where it appears more speculative than factual indicates a small bit probably best left out.

 

I was kind of thinking the same thing which is why I asked about how they go about research.

 

If they don't use some kind of refutable hypothesis-- seems like they're missing two important safeguards.  Reject the null as false when it's really true (egg on your face time.)  Or be too conservative and prove the null true when it's really false. 

 

Anyway, research-babble aside, in inductive logic, he does seem to skip some steps to get to his conclusion: internal consistancy---> hasty conclusion?

 

It's an ambitious idea though, so a very tough assignment.

 

That leads to final question. 

 

Who was in the driver's seat for these articles?  George Rimikas or Daniel Kircheimer?  If Rimikas doing the research & writing and Kircheimer acting as a kind of "chair" or mentor...

 

Wow!  I think Rimikas is going places!  My hat's off to him! 

 

Thinking on this thread -- it's focus does meander -- I do disagree a bit with David Nishimura. Personal differences seem to be at the heart of the PCA's... issues.  "Putting them aside" is akin to the fellow who murdered his parents pleading mercy from the court since his tragically finds himself an orphan.

 

I can expand on this later. Notions of dishonorable behavior by persons on the Board, the purported  need for the Prez to force the new Editor to issue a public apology, even if that apology was rather half-assed, that sort.

 

-d

 

Oh dear...

 

OK, here goes.  Hope I don't regret possibly opening a can of worms or old wounds.

 

But fill me in.  As "rank & file" I don't know why we seem to have two irreconcilable camps.

 

Facts as I understand them.  (May or may not have anything to do with the conflict.)

 

1.) An issue of Pennant made it to press without someone proofing it.

 

2.) As "Captain of the ship" the editor resigned or was sacked because the mistake happened on his watch.

 

a.) Mistakes happen and his forced exit (if forced it was) was / is seen as a betrayal-- a stab in the back.  "Etu Brutus?"

 

That might do it.

 

thx

 

--Bruce

 

PS:  David, if you think summarizing would only makes things worse, then please delete. Maybe e-mail more appropriate if you're comfortable with that & have time.  None of my business really.  Just trying to understand what happened here.  Feels like I'm in a mine field & that takes much of the fun out of posting about the hobby.

 

PSS:  gorgeous pens as always.  Is there any pen you do not have? !   ; )

[Pensee]

As for history, in most cases it isn't science.

 

Science can and does deal with demonstrable facts, things that can be determined by tests which can then be corroborated by repetition.

In some cases, historical researchers can run such tests when it comes to materials and dating and the like, but in the broader construction of history there are just too many gaps and uncertainties. Much of the practice of history is interpretation.

 

OK.  But if we aren't familiar with the material how to tell fact from fiction-- accurate or inaccurate?

 

Guess we have to rely on other historians!  : 0 !  But meanwhile how long is the possible misinformation out there?

 

We live in an imperfect world of course.  Beginning to think historians have a more difficult job than I thought.

 

Definately going to have get a book on qualitative methods. 

 

 

 

***What are the safeguards for qualitative research in history?  How does one spot cherry picking supporting evidence while conveniently ignoring disconfirmatory evidence?*** 

 

--Bruce

A good journalist doesn't tell a reader what to think, but what to think about.  Our authors are outstanding journalists, and I felt privileged to have served as editor as parts 2 and 3 of the "Blotting" series and the Balance article went to press.

 

I would feel equally privileged to edit equally compelling articles from any of you and see them to press, as well.   .

 

 

I hadn't thought about it in terms of journalism.  Worth considering because that opens things up imho.

 

For example, I've only been collecting / researching for 8 years.  No pen I obtain or anything I learn will be news here at FPB!

 

Always assumed same thing about writing an article.  What could I possibly say that isn't old news? 

 

If members think they can 'cover' an event though (My First Pen Show) or relate a story about a pen (Found My Grial Pen) maybe more of us would be inclined to have a go at it.

 

Just some idle thoughts.

 

best

 

--Bruce

[George]

For those who did not get a chance to read the "Blotting Out the Truth" three-part series in the PENnant, a version of the article is available here: 

 

http://home.comcast....t_the_Truth.pdf

 

I recommend taking the time to read the entire article and explore all of the citations and references in the piece.

 

Regards,

George

[Hugh]

"Making the New York Connection" has one citation, a map. Likewise Hollands' childhood is a bit light on and the one point that stood out was the assumption Holland wasn't related to either James or Mrs. Fox , again a very minor point but relevant if Mrs Fox had previously been married.

[Hugh]

 

.. have not been documented before by any other authors.  These facts have led the authors to reasonable conclusions which challenge us to reevaluate accepted collectors' lore.  The ball is now in the court of those who would cling to that lore to substantiate contrary conclusions which are equally supported by facts.

 

 

I'm talking about the bits that aren't documented and lack factual backup which places the ball in the writers court. Again in context of the article relatively minor but as a casual reader I find such "bits" tend to cast a doubt on the article in general which given the time and effort in preparing it somewhat unfair and unwarranted.   

[David Nishimura]

 

OK.  But if we aren't familiar with the material how to tell fact from fiction-- accurate or inaccurate?

 

Guess we have to rely on other historians!  : 0 !  But meanwhile how long is the possible misinformation out there?

 

We live in an imperfect world of course.  Beginning to think historians have a more difficult job than I thought.

 

 

It can take a long time before interpretations change. Often it's not a matter of intentional misuse of data, but rather of unconscious preconceptions. What is of interest to us now may not have been of interest to historians a generation ago, and if questions don't get asked, answers aren't going to be found. And yes, we do have to rely on other historians -- just as we have to rely on other scientists when it comes to assessing scientific theories. To do history right requires a serious commitment to one's area of specialization, and pen history is no exception.

[FarmBoy]

I keep my pen magazines on a small table in the head.  Judging by the some of the commentary here, that is an appropriate place for them.

 

Management issues aside, an easy way to improve the quality might be to participate in the process.  Perhaps someone or a group of someones could write a counter point article on the subject in question posing alternative theories?

 

As an example, David and I have had a number of discussions on the T6 and T7 date codes found on "51".  What I think we both can assure you is that the published explanation which is the hobby lore makes no sense.  I can also state we have no more or less evidence for our pet theories.  YET, any discussion regarding alternate interpretations have not been met with vitriol but instead resulted in stimulating conversation.

[George]

"Making the New York Connection" has one citation, a map.

 

Every fact presented in the article is properly referenced in the article. "Making the New York Connection" does not have just one reference.

 

Hugh, did you notice the 100 or so blue underlined hyper-linked references throughout the article, or the dozens and dozens of footnotes in each PENnant edition?

 

 

Likewise Hollands' childhood is a bit light on and the one point that stood out was the assumption Holland wasn't related to either James or Mrs. Fox , again a very minor point but relevant if Mrs Fox had previously been married.

 

One point that stood out to you while reading the article was the authors' assumption that Mrs. Fox and Holland were not related?

 

Frank Holland was raised in an orphanage.

 

Edit: to clarify information taken from the article.

Edited by George, 05 May 2015 - 03:29 AM.

[Hugh]

Again it assumes the same person, I suspect neither Frank (edit to get name right) nor Holland uncommon names. Even if the same person it's unclear he was an orphan or placed in that facility as the article mentions, there is no assertion that he was an orphan. He may have had 0,1 or 2 parents alive when in the facility.

 

Yes there are more citations. It's not the facts at issue. It's the speculation. Given most of it is end pg 44 through 46 ( of the link you provided) the one citation highlighted is a map.

 

Regards

Hugh

Edited by Hugh, 05 May 2015 - 02:39 AM.

[Jon Veley]

As an example, David and I have had a number of discussions on the T6 and T7 date codes found on "51".  What I think we both can assure you is that the published explanation which is the hobby lore makes no sense.  I can also state we have no more or less evidence for our pet theories.  YET, any discussion regarding alternate interpretations have not been met with vitriol but instead resulted in stimulating conversation. 

 

I would like to see your article on the 51s.  i'm sure you have good reasons for believing as you do and perhaps if those views were shared, others might come to accept your reasoning.  On the other hand, evidence might later surface which refutes your beliefs, but that's no reason to shy away from presenting the best evidence currently available. 

[Hugh]

Management issues aside, an easy way to improve the quality might be to participate in the process.  Perhaps someone or a group of someones could write a counter point article on the subject in question posing alternative theories?

 

 

When there's no known facts there's little, actually no, value in adding a different speculative view that's based on the same lack of supporting evidence.

 

Regards

Hugh

[Rick Krantz]

not this again... or still? 

 

I liked the waterman article, I thought it was very well done. I liked the sheaffer stuff as well. 

 

I'm hopeful for the PCA and the Pennant. 

 

I enjoyed writing my article for Paul's Journal. I also submitted a show review of Baltimore to John. I also owe him something for the Long Island show. 

 

I got a new article in the works. 

 

Listen, I think there's room enough for more than one magazine. 

 

enjoy the hobby everyone. 

[Hugh]

 

 

Likewise Hollands' childhood is a bit light on and the one point that stood out was the assumption Holland wasn't related to either James or Mrs. Fox , again a very minor point but relevant if Mrs Fox had previously been married.

 

One point that stood out to you while reading the article was the authors' assumption that Mrs. Fox and Holland were not related?

 

Frank Holland was an orphan, and was raised in an orphanage.

 

 

George,

 

I'll flesh this out a bit.

 

There are 3 assumptions about Hollands' early years 1. He's unrelated to James and Mrs. Fox  2. It's the same Frank Holland in the census and 3. He spent his childhood as an inmate of the facility.

 

Using the years provided Holland was born in 1850, did you find any documents relating to his birth? Was he born out of wedlock? If so Holland could be either his fathers' surname or his mothers'.

 

If it is the same Holland in the census did you find any documentation as to the reason he ended up there ( noting you claim him an orphan now) or the length of stay? 1 month? 1 yr? 10 yrs?

 

Then we come back to James and Mrs.Fox. There's a lot of assumptions to conclude he wasn't related  (likewise that he was).

 

The reality seems to indicate there is nothing to support the claim he spent his childhood in the facility or that he was not related to James and Mrs.Fox. That doesn't mean it's not an accurate reflection just that it's unsupported (speculative).

 

Regards

Hugh

Edited by Hugh, 05 May 2015 - 02:59 AM.

[FarmBoy]

 

"Making the New York Connection" has one citation, a map.

 

Every fact presented in the article is properly referenced in the article. "Making the New York Connection" does not have just one reference.

 

Hugh, did you notice the 100 or so blue underlined hyper-linked references throughout the article, or the dozens and dozens of footnotes in each PENnant edition?

 

 

Likewise Hollands' childhood is a bit light on and the one point that stood out was the assumption Holland wasn't related to either James or Mrs. Fox , again a very minor point but relevant if Mrs Fox had previously been married.

 

One point that stood out to you while reading the article was the authors' assumption that Mrs. Fox and Holland were not related?

 

Frank Holland was an orphan, and was raised in an orphanage.

 

George,

I don't even need to read the article to know most of it was written with a Parker and what wasn't penned directly was typed on a Mac.

 

Todd

[David Nishimura]

I'm afraid some participants in this discussion have unrealistic expectations of how historical research should be done.

 

In history (as in other fields), it is perfectly acceptable to publish an interpretation of events based upon the sources available and accessible. Of course, different sources may turn up, and modify or even contradict that interpretation. Consider the declassification of government documents, for example, or the opening up (and re-closing) of Soviet archives. Yet that is no reason not to attempt interpretation of what data is at hand.

 

This particularly applies to fields that are largely unexplored.

The American colonial era has been studied by historians for two centuries, and new insights and discoveries are still being made all the time, large and small. The development of the fountain pen industry, in contrast, has barely been examined. It is largely uncharted territory, and when there are no maps, one starts mapping as best one can. A rough map is better than no map. The first attempts will necessarily be incomplete. They will be improved upon, corrected, and refined in due time, and as others join the enterprise. The writing of history, like mapmaking, is a process. No history is ever going to be the last word -- least of all, when it is the first word.

[Hugh]

Facts are one part, interpreting them and presenting them the other. The latter ideally needs to reflect the former. Does finding two census entries 10 yrs apart ( a feat in it's own right) tell us anything more than where a person was on a particular day? No, it doesn't. The conclusions you can draw are that a Frank Holland was separated from his parents when the 1860 census was taken and in Hartford Orphan asylum and a Frank Holland was living with James and Mrs.Fox when the 1870 census was taken. Any other conclusions are speculative. What's presented, while logical, is just filling in with no factual base noting it could have been reworded to better reflect the speculative nature.

 

More to the point is "filling in" needed ? I just don't see in an article of this nature and scale any need for a lot of "filling in" because it stands out as such. The key feature is the depth of research (and the effort put in) that supports the bulk of the work. Heck !! as a casual reader I shouldn't even notice the fill ins.

 

It's also perfectly acceptable to ask the authors how they reached a particular conclusion, that's a process that leads to better outcomes.  

Edited by Hugh, 05 May 2015 - 11:56 PM.